Viva Frei on Trudeau’s gun ban on “assault-style” weapons:

Global News, what a ban on “assualt-style” weapons means for legal gun owners:

Brian Lilley, Trudeau’s gun ban will do nothing but cost us money:

CBC (2013), Gun Culture in Canada:

CTV News, Premier Ford criticizes federal assault rifle ban, buyback program:

True North, Scapegoating lawful gun owners:

Michelle Rempel, Trudeau’s firearms confiscation must be stopped:

CCFR, Trudeau Assault Weapons Ban:

Civil Liberties

Let’s just get right into this. We are two months into the biggest violation of Canadians’ civil liberties as we all try to #stayhome during a government imposed lockdown. Now for lack of better tools, it has served to battle the Covid19. But with still no end date to this isolation mandate, it has felt more like Covid1984. There has been a lot of positives to come out of this lockdown and it may be necessary to save lives. But while people are getting ticketed, for walking dogs or sitting on benches, by Gestapo-like police task forces Trudeau came out this week curtailing our freedoms even more by effective immediately making 150 guns illegal to own in Canada. Once again, Canadians are less liberal by this “liberal” government.

Ezra Levant covers Ontario mom handcuffed after taking daughter to playground:

While no one is really surprised by this, because the liberals campaigned on gun bans, it just falls so tone deaf and opportunistic that I believe it’s truly revealing the depth of the modern liberal ideology. With people forced to stay home we cannot discuss this among our friends and peers. We would be mocked and condemned if we attempted to form a protest that disrespected the physical distancing guidelines in any way. MPs have been told to conduct their parliamentary duties virtually as glitches and literacy issues compromise any useful content. The official opposition leadership has been suspended up to now and there’s no way that Canadians would accept an election right now with everything going on so it would be political suicide to bring forth a non-confidence vote. Combined with these emergency measures that have empowered this government, they implemented this new legislation without passing it through the house of commons for debate and critique.

We can agree to disagree on gun bans themselves but that’s a totally separate issue from what we can agree is a completely undemocratically implemented law from a minority government whos new law affects a majority of Canadians who would not have voted Liberal in the first place. This isn’t just a debate, by the way. This is something that affects 2.2 000 000 Canadians. These are real, living, breathing people who are directly impacted by these bans. That deserves a debate in the house of commons at the very least. But with the stroke of a pen Trudeau declared many of these people criminals. With a 2 year grandfather clause and buy-back initiatives but that doesn’t change the fact that these weapons have now been criminalized. It’s really not that the Trudeau government dislikes disparities themselves, they just want to ensure that the disparities travel in only one direction.

CCFR Channel on legal gun owners:

CTV News with Erin O’Toole wanting gun control measures to go through the house:

Canadian VS American Gun Culture

Now I’ll just be totally upfront. I don’t own a gun nor do I feel the need to own a gun. I don’t sport shoot or hunt even though I have been to shooting ranges several times for fun and would love to go hunting someday. I don’t know that I can sufficiently build the most appropriate defence for gun ownership but as a free individual this ban still affects me as it still infringes on my freedoms. And in many circumstances in the past, Canadians have been put in seriously compromising and dangerous situations.

TVO Steve Paikin in discussion with Christie Blatchford on her book Helpless:

Situations like Caledonia as thoroughly documented by Christine Blatchford’s book Helpless. Where police, at the behest of politicians and political agendas, refused to enforce the law and put hundreds or law abiding Canadian lives at risk. Perhaps things would’ve gone differently if they had formed their own local militia. But despite all odds, locals appealed to their better nature and did not devolve into a tribalized gun culture seeking to emancipate themselves from civilization at the first sign of trouble.

It’s important to note that often when we see politicized coverage of gun culture, most of that comes from the states. Where there is a big difference between gun rights and gun issues than here in Canada. The biggest difference being that gun ownership is an actual constitutional right whereas here in Canada is it a privilege in the same way that obtaining the licensing to drive vehicles is a privilege. Which are two totally different conversations. I think we do a piss poor job at protecting civil liberties and after seeing how easy it is for politicians to bully law abiding innocent people, I believe it serves to argue in favour of the American model more than the Canadian.

The problem with honour systems and privileges is that authoritarians love trampling all over them. Establishing a privilege as a constitutional right builds in protections for the people against the government. But It seems to me that Canadians have generally become reliant on government to the extent that we like being controlled. We like being told what to do because then we don’t need to think for ourselves. It’s no wonder that politics has become about as tribalized as professional wrestling because if you’re going to forfeit your liberties you want your team at the helm.

That’s ok. We just need the right politician leading the country to make liberals regret this more than ever for them to wake up to the reality of the value of independence. We’re seeing that in America right now. America’s republic has much better controls in place to prevent abuse of power by authorities but with the expanding the power of executive orders over years has now backfired against democrats there as Trump has leaned on executive orders to govern basically however he wishes, regardless what senators say on matters. So be it, they get what they deserve. Maybe they’ll scale back executive orders once Trump is out of office.

In one country if you’re arguing for gun control you’re arguing against individual constitutional rights. That’s different than regulating a privilege. I personally feel that Canada has the better approach to guns. If someone abuses their privileges then those privileges can be taken away. But a free and democratic society acknowledges individual sovereignty and so to curtail those liberties is an extremely serious thing. This is why I am so disturbed by modern liberals who seem hell bent on constantly lecturing us all on what type of Canadian is a “good” Canadian. Modern liberals who regard our social safety nets to be more of a kind allowance by daddy politician, as moralized budgetary spending items continue to trend.

Most Canadians are not gun owners. And an unfortunate side effect to that is a lot of ignorance around guns, gun laws and gun owners. And like everything else, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that something should just be banned when you have little expertise to draw from when evaluating complex issues. It’s no different than censoring free speech. We all want to have the freedom to express ourselves but the second we hear something we don’t like we want to condemn it, deplatform it, contest it in every way possible. It’s the laziest method of debate but we all engage in it because we’re all scared that just maybe we’re the ones who are wrong. That could reveal some disturbing details about ourselves that would be far more comfortable to ignore.

“Facts don’t care about your feelings,” -Ben Shapiro

Styxhexxenhammer666 speculates on Trudeau’s Gun ban:

Gun Issue(s)

What I want to invite everyone to do here is to attempt to broaden the conversation that’s being had. If we’re going to discuss negative gun issues then we can’t also ignore the positive gun issues. Just think to every social justice movement of the past. What if the black panthers didn’t have access to guns. Could they have been as effective? Were lives lost as a direct result of their actions? Yes. They were effectively domestic terrorists. But they forced all of America to have a very uncomfortable conversation. A conversation that America struggles to have even today. I don’t think removing the use of the word “nigger” from Huckleberry finn is going to produce the same results. Gun rights are black rights.

And while we’re reviewing the days of old, let’s rate how successful the prohibition was. I mean, it made for great business for Canada and started organized crime in America. Just collateral damage for a greater cause. They argued back then too that nobody “needs” booze. And now the LCBO is an essential service. And this all coming from the guy who legalized weed. Now Trudeau is demanding a border shut down while Trump is calling for open borders. What the actual fuck is going on? This truly is clown world.

The whole necessity argument liberals make is precisely the slippery slope gun owners worry about. Who “needs” alcohol? Who “needs” weed? Who “needs” cigarettes? Access to public discourse, sugar, tanning salons, harmful cosmetics, excessive caffine, etc, etc, etc? Amidst a morbid obesity epidemic it would seem totally reasonable to ban unhealthy eating habits. You can make a case for why you don’t need anything but air and sustenance. But this isn’t about needs, is it? It’s about wants. And what I want is to have complete control of my life and my life choices. Who needs a ruling elite constantly deciding for you what your needs are?

One of the many differences between men and women is that women are far more vulnerable to domestic violence than men. There are women who check the back seat of their car every time they get in. They experience anxiety from merely having someone walking behind them in confined spaces like parking garages. Some women check every room of their home when they walk in. Personal security is a women’s issue. It’s always confused me why women weren’t more supportive of female gun ownership. If she’s packing, now it’s the dude who’s at the disadvantage. Gun rights are women’s rights.

This to say nothing about sports and hunting and farming and animal population control. You can actually be a gun collector and not Hitler at the same time. This is not so different from the abortion debate or drug legalization and others. These are complicated issues that require more voices not less. I’ve said many times before and I’ll say again that I have no right to tell an Albertan not to own a gun and an Albertan has no right to tell me not to get an abortion. Not to say that I, personally, would ever require one. I’m sure there’s a better example out there somewhere.

Sweeping blanket solutions often fail to work for anyone. And this is where I fall back on my libertarian sentiments and believe that it is not the role of the federal government to dictate terms to the provinces. In fact it should be the other way around. The feds should embody what it is the provinces are championing. Policy making should be a bottom-up approach, not top-down. Quebec has decided to prioritize it’s cultural identity of secularism and francophone language and tradition over pluralism. You are allowed to practice your personal faith and traditions within your own home, within your community but when you are representing the government in any way you must convey Quebec values first and foremost.

There’s no doubt that it is discrimination and if this is truly something Quebecers want then they should put it to a vote and then respect the outcome of the referendum. Using the non-withstanding-clause is no way to implement such significant policies. But if that’s truly what Quebec wants, we should all be prepared to respect the outcome of that referendum. Part of the agreement during confederation was that Quebec was to keep it’s language, culture and traditions. That was the day Canada became a multicultural country. On the basis of acknowledging provincial sovereignty.

That is the only way we’re going to produce the most ideal outcomes to these complex issues. It needs to be left up to the provinces. And from there it’s up to those within the province to sort out. Right now the government is telling the entire country what to do based on a mandate given to them by Ontario. How’s that for a disparity? Would today’s Canada allow Quebec to keep that culture? Is that very tolerant? I think Quebec could find a much better way of handling other faiths and religious symbols and I hope they do strike a better balance to respect individual freedoms as I do feel this is in conflict with the federal charter of rights to practice one’s faith freely. But again, that is not my battle. As a Canadian I am a voice in that discussion but as an Ontarian, it’s not my place to dictate terms to Quebec. That’s all Ontario is doing with gun bans. Toronto is free to ban whatever gun it likes as cities should be in control of their own destiny. But it should end there.

News and narratives

Notice that I have yet to really talk about guns. Because I don’t need to be a gun owner to be impacted by this curtailing of freedom. But I suppose it’s time to more specifically address the elephant in the room. And that has to start with the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the head of the G20 debacle in Toronto, Bill Blair. If you know anything about guns or gun laws as they existed prior to this new ban, you can easily see right through Blair as his overt mischaracterizations and outright lies are totally transparent. He has placed himself as the authority over otherwise non-partisan police departments.

Sheila Gunn Reid covering CCFR interview with Bill Blair back in Oct. 2019:

True North, Politicizing a tragedy:

In this True North clip specifically at 15:15 – 18:20 you see the moment the spokeswoman for the RCMP actually turns to Bill Blair for him to take control of questioning to interject the political narrative. Both Trudeau and Blair talking about how important it is for a non-partisan RCMP investigation and statement and yet the RCMP directly taking a back seat to the political narrative that would go on to support Trudeau’s gun ban. And of course the question at hand was towards the legality of the Nova Scotia shooters guns. It’s shit like this that is driving people crazy. Everywhere we turn our news media is not informing us, they are managing us.

The Weekly Briefing with Wendy Messly interviewing Tony Bernardo:

It’s important to observe people’s reactions to media’s reporting on guns and gun violence. It’s generally pretty split in terms of likes and dislikes and the top comments tend to flow against the grain of the messaging the media is trying to propagate. But it doesn’t stop them from promoting their one sided reporting anyway. To get better coverage you literally have to travel back in time to watch older content when they at least allowed contrarians on the show to rebut their propaganda. These days you don’t even get that. The only devil’s advocate they play are ridiculous straw man arguments and the only people they feature are the typical weaker, more controversial pundits that they can easily contend with in debate. The people out there making the best arguments has effectively been deplatformed by partisan media outlets.

You Can’t do Moore with Less

John Moore, morning show host of Moore in the Morning on Newstalk 1010, is a good example of the kind of Ontario liberal who seems to have adopted this god complex where everything liberal equals good and everything conservative equals bad. He used to be a voice that I relied on to make sense during the Harper years when he actually worked to understand both sides of the argument. Now it seems like in his later years he’s lost the appetite for a good debate and feels obligated to tow the party line and only argue in one direction. Some of the most absolutely most ridiculous straw man arguments around conservative perspectives has come from John’s mouth. And it makes me very sad as a guy who admired him for so many years and widely regarded him as a sense maker who could shake off the tribal filters.

John writes in the Toronto Sun in an article titled “gun owners, you’re on your own“. He basically spends the whole article whining about how mean Twitter is to him. John, seriously? You can’t post a bunt cake recipe without expecting at least a handful of threats. Twitter is not representative of reality. It’s the birth place of trolls of all stripes and more divisive than 4chan. What the fuck did you expect? You don’t get to brag to your friends that you have a million followers and then try to complain when those million individuals take exception with something you posted.

John tweeted, “I support gun rights for hunters and target shooters. I don’t know why anyone needs automatic weapons.” It’s easy to understand why this shouldn’t be a controversial statement. But John Moore, whether he acknowledges it or not, is a prominent voice in Toronto and he, like most liberal media covering this issue, is getting his facts wrong. The guy who constantly harrangs on and on about “science and facts” can’t even bother to look into this issue enough to realize that this is not a ban on automatic weapons. there is already restrictions in place on automatic weapons.

This is addressing semi-automatic weapons. And it highlights the very reason the word assault-“STYLE” is being paraded around. Because to liberals ALL guns are assault weapons. Hell, to liberals WORDS are assault weapons. And so to embrace this vast generalizing vagueness around material property that people own is nothing more than an all out war on guns in general. They don’t like guns and they just want to take them away from you, regardless whether data and science support it.

John’s tweet just reeks of the same ignorance that gun owners hear around the clock by the media, mischaracterizing the entire reality of the situation. Just like when John always references Australia’s gun ban while totally ignoring that Australia doesn’t share a border with one of the largest gun producing countries in the world. The same border that is used to smuggle illegal guns into the country on a daily basis. Australia doesn’t have that border problem because it is an island, John.

London has a gun ban and are now effectively trying to ban all knives because of stabbings. It’s almost like there’s a criminal element at play that’s not getting discussed. And as innocent as your tweet appeared to be, John, maybe people are just sick and tired of others refusing to have the whole conversation. Not just the parts liberals want to talk about. So I’m sorry your words didn’t illicit the claps and props you liberals trade for currency. I’m sorry you didn’t get your daily dose of dopamine from the usual suspects who agree with everything you say.

Funny how when you’re away from the microphone sometimes it becomes your turn to listen and you discover that really you just like when it’s your turn to talk. But this is why I don’t have twitter. It’s too anonymous and encourages the worst aspects of tribalism and enables bullying and toxic mob justice group think. It’s not a legitimate consensus of reality nor does it facilitate effective dialogue. I’m not saying you deserved that abuse John, but I do think if you’re too tired to participate in the discussion then maybe you should just retire your position to a more honest broadcaster.

To write off 2.2 million gun owners because a handful of them are mean on twitter is the laziest excuse to write off a group of people you clearly already had every intention to write off. It genuinely pains me to see John Moore become just another partisan hack. I genuinely had a man crush on him when he was on the cocktail hour. I’m sorry that rant was way too long for the likes of John Moore but I think it speaks to my absolute heartbreak over just how much it hurts to see someone I always referenced and looked up to as a sense maker now fall from grace. But this is what liberals do when they realize they have lost the argument. They decry victimhood and attempt to discredit the opposition in place of forming better arguments. I guess that’s it, John, I’m done with you too.

Discerning between Evidence and Emotions in the Face of Tragedy

And I suppose the other elephant in the room we must address is what happened in Nova Scotia. And gun violence all together. Because none of this is to suggest in any way that we don’t have a gun problem. But what we have more precisely is an illegal gun problem. And this is the greatest sleight of hand played by the vast majority of Media. They report on firearms statistics as though there is no difference between illegal and legal gun owners.

Canada has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. It’s not the wild west as the media portrays it as while showing footage of Americans shooting at hurricane Irma. Or they would infer that legal gun owners if anything facilitate the illegal activity. The reality is that the opposite is true. Convicted felons have more rights than legal gun owners. Pedophiles are not tracked like legal gun owners are tracked by police.

The Free White North Debunking the Gun Ban:

True North in discussion with CCFR Gun Lobby:

Bill Maher in conversation with Colion Noir about America’s gun culture:

TVO’s Steve Paikin sits down with Ed Burlew on gun rights:

In the Globe and Mail article, “Toronto Sees record number of shootings in 2019, but fewer deaths,” Tom Cardoso goes on to explain that Toronto alone saw 490 shootings in 2019. Contrasting that to 2005’s “year of the gun” with 262 shootings. What the article leaves out are how many of those shootings were from legally owned guns and which of those were illegal. I know anecdotally from the daily news I follow I have yet to hear of a single shooting that was from a legal gun owner. This is backed up by the account of retired OPP Mark Mendelson when speaking to Jerry Agar on news talk 1010. Mendelson had a 14 year career with Toronto Police as a lead homicide squad investigator and now owns a consulting firm. He claimed (anecdotally) that from his experience 99.99% of gun crimes committed were done so with illegal guns. Though Mendelson supports the gun ban he’s made clear that this ban will do nothing to curb gun violence as it only targets legal guns.

The Globe article goes on to point out that both the city and the police know exactly the neighbourhoods that are ripe with gang activity that is contributing to the black market of illegal guns and the gun violence that is terrorizing the city. The Jane and Finch community, the Rexdale and Regent Park communities. It was after the Danforth shooting that the province dumped millions into a special police task force to deal with gangs and guns. Aside from arrests and seizures Toronto Police also held 18 town halls across the city in 2019. Toronto Mayor John Tory initiated a gun buyback program which resulted in 3,100 firearms being turned in.

Some of the findings that came out of those initiatives was that Ontario courts need to reform bail. Police accounts of arresting individuals who have discharged an illegal firearm, booked them and brought them before the court for judgement just to, later on that day, respond to yet another shots fired 911 call only to discover the exact person whom they had arrested and booked previously that same day.

Gang bangers operate with such impunity and brazenous that in a townhouse complex (named Acorn place) 5 minutes from where I live. Despite John Tory and Mark Saunders proclaiming in their press conferences, “this isn’t Toronto, this isn’t the GTA, etc,” the reality is we’ve been trending upwards since 2014 with shootings spiking over the last 4 years. The reality is this IS Toronto, this IS the GTA. And the real problem here is a reluctance in this province to hold criminals to account. And continually legal gun owners are being blamed for the brazen actions of criminals with illegal guns.

Since 2014 we’ve seen many changes within the GTA. Political correctness has fostered a toxic anti-cop sentiment to grow through our communities. Cops have been booted from their presence in schools for the absurd reason that they “target” black students. Carding practices have been banned for accusations of racism. Let’s be clear, there have been credible accounts of abuses of power by police with citizens. We can have that discussion, not so dissimilar to the one had in New York around stop and frisk laws. But to write off the entire practice itself as systematically racist in nature rather than a rooted in the poor judgement of the individual officer enforcing it, is nothing more than grossly misrepresenting reality and ignoring all of the positive outcomes from the practice.

Peel Regional Police Chief Jennifer Evans spoke out herself to attribute the spike in violence to be directly related to the carding ban specifically. And of course you had all the media unilaterally come out to condemn her as a racist and a bigot and calling for her to be fired. Because it’s perfectly fine to entertain controversy or have difficult dialogue as long as it supports the agreed upon narrative. Because political correctness is apparently more important than saving lives.

CityNews, interviews Peel Police Chief Jennifer Evans on the Carding Ban:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/iframe/593482582001/SyxzIeNcgb/5803295136001?auto_play_switch=false

Coffee with Cops

So interested for me to watch this lockdown unfold with people cheering on gestapo-like police harassing people for just being outside of their homes. Yet when it comes to gang violence it’s just purely racist and fascist and cannot be tolerated. We can absolutely collapse our economy because “saving lives is more important than your mani-pedi.” But I guess lives are just collateral damage when it comes to police walking the beat in known problematic communities.

A virus justifies overcompensating to address the threat but when an Arab man shoots up the Danforth, with a little girl and teenager among the dead, we just have to shrug our shoulders and decry the plight of mental illness. Okay, fine, as long as we’re being consistent.

But there’s just no doubting at this point that these things have contributed to the problem rather than improving anything. The Pride Parade has banned police now for several years in a total rejection of police presence outside of security details for the event. There was no path forward laid out by pride. No road to redemption for a police force needing to improve it’s relationship with the community.

It was nothing more than a complete rejection of relationship building between the gay community and police. Sending the clear message that if you’re a gay police officer you don’t get to wear both hats. If you want attend pride you must do so without a uniform. You must closet your identity to conform with the community guidelines. Because that’s exactly what Pride is all about, right? How inclusive.

As if it wasn’t clear enough that this was the product of a complete ideological takeover of Pride by radicals who do not represent the entire LBGTQ community, you began to see police ban trends in the Vancouver parade and others across the country. And even across the globe in other countries. These divisions planted the seeds for more segregation and condemnation of police. Such as the protests that have emerged from positive events such as “Coffee with a cop“.

With the absolute toxic attitude towards police today who the hell would want to become an officer in today’s political climate? You’re no longer the hero, you’re the villain. Even when you do good you can rely on the media and activists with political agendas are going to represent you as the villain regardless. Between this and the struggles with the courts, police now have developed the habit of FIDO, “Forget It, Drive On.” Where if they see a situation that could possibly backfire on them or put their employment in jeopardy they just opt out entirely rather than doing their duty.

You don’t think any of this can be correlated to gang activity or to the surge in shootings? This is why so many people are arguing right now that these measures aren’t actually aimed at decreasing violence. Because none of these politically correct motivated initiatives have ever helped the situation. They’ve only made things worse. And if all police departments across the country unilaterally agree that the issue is illegal guns, not legal guns then why isn’t trudeau targeting illegal guns? Why isn’t he cracking down on the smuggling operations going through the border? Why is he granting a native exemption to the new law when we know the smuggling is occurring at the border along the native reserves?

These are questions that aren’t just ignored by the politicians implementing this legislation, these are questions that aren’t even being put to them by the media we are relying on to report accurately on these situations. And any independent journalists who are trying to ask these questions are getting blasted as hateful and discriminatory. Convenient.

The Time to Act is Now

The reality is we will always have mass murderers among us in the same way we will continue to have the mentally ill among us. The mass murderer problem is a complex problem but to call it a gun problem is missing the point. There’s a reason why, in the bible, the first humans to be born on the earth are Able and Cain. What modern liberals fundamentally do not understand is that people are not blank slates who merely need to unlearn the patriarchy that has fostered their toxic behaviors.

Jordan Peterson with message to school shooters: past, present and future:

It’s rules and boundaries that contain the depraved sinner within. We are just animals at our core and we are all capable of evil and to dismantle the structure that comes with those boundaries is to unshackle the monsters deep within. The mass murderer complex is a deep resentment of life itself and a death wish to seek revenge against God. This is largely documented by academics like Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson.

There’s a commonality that you can find between mass murderers from the colombine kids, the parkland shooter, the vegas shooter and now the Nova Scotia shooter. And it runs far deeper than mere guns. The Nova Scotia killer burned people alive in their homes. Are we going to ban fire? The incel driver attack on Yonge street killed 6 and injured 13 before he was arrested. Do we ban rental vans?

It’s just so frustrating because this ban will be about as effective as reducing highway speed limits to try and minimize pedestrian collisions on side streets. Yes they both have to do with cars. Congratulations, you’re a natural born detective. Clap, clap, clap. To end my epic rant here I just want to reiterate that banning things is usually more of an indication that the banner isn’t really fully informed on what it is they wish to ban. Because bans largely do not work or fuel a backlash.

Most issues are more complex than that. But it’s a typical liberal concept that everyone but them are just idiots who need to be told what to do. I, and many like minded, freedom loving, real flesh and blood, living, breathing Canadians are just exhausted at the lazy liberal argument about whether or not we “need” this or that. Do we really need those guns to hunt deer? First of all, you’re not allowed to hunt deer with restricted firearms anyway. They can only exist in secured lock boxes and on RCMP regulated sports facilities.

Aside from that, why is it liberals can only formulate their arguments around what they personally deem to be necessary for how others get to live their lives? When do I get to have a say on the necessity of renewable energy, or bike lanes or carbon taxes? These are the same people who occupy condo boards and ban pets from the buildings becuase a few assholes don’t stoop and scoop. The same “Karens” who call and complain to the bylaw officers because they can hear kids bouncing basketballs.

And it comes from the same place in our own thought processes when we become so reliant on government intervention that when we can simply see litter on the ground our first reaction is, “someone ought to clean that up,” but we never come to the conclusion that that “someone” should be us. As Canadians we are far too dependent on government and we moralize social services to justify deficit spending but does that really come from a place of compassion or from a place of greed?

We want to improve our lives but the only person who can do that is you. And while we may actually like the structure that comes with being told what to do, is that really any sustainable way to live your life? And frankly if liberals are using the “necessity” debate then I have no faith that it will end with guns. People who love freedom and liberty need to push back against this authoritarianism and reject this far left modern liberalism.

Otherwise Trudeau and those like him will continue nudging us until we find ourselves up against the wall and they will argue that we actually wanted this because when they pushed us we did not do enough to prevent it from happening. That’s consent to a liberal. They will continue to socially engineer society by “unlearning” all the things that are problematic to their political agenda and they will continue to micro manage and lecture us about being the right kind of Canadian. Whether you own a gun or not, you are less free this week thanks to the liberal party of Canada.

Sign this petition to tell Trudeau HANDS OFF OUR GUNS

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.

-Thomas Jefferson

Watch a Mary Ham break down the situation surrounding Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder (4:56):

Watch Phillip Defranco covering the situation:

Watch Tim Pool’s report on the situation:

Watch Tim Pool follow up on of the adpocalypse:

Watch Lauren Chen cover the situation:

Watch Joe Rogan’s reaction to the situation:

CNN business interviews Maza over situation:

Watch 1791 profile Carlos Maza:

Watch 1791 follow up with “The Aftermath”:

Watch Glenn Beck’s reaction to the situation:

Watch Glenn Beck interview Steven Crowder:

Watch Jimmy Dore react to the situation:

Watch David Pakman break down the situation:

Watch Secular Talk break down the situation:

Watch Sargon of Akkad react to the situation:

Watch the Quartering react to the situation:

Watch Ben Shapiro cover the situation:

Watch Steven Crowder in his own words, “I’m not sorry”:

It may be Steven’s right to say whatever he wants but let’s not kid ourselves, there is speech that you just can’t defend. Using the word “fag” on a t-shirt you sell as merch, that’s not a hill worth dying on. Nor is it something I would want to support or sympathize with. He’s used the word fag regularly like in events held with Milo. Youtubers are more than just commentators, they’re role models to their audience. But when you look at what crowder actually says about Maza it’s always in the context of rebuttal.

He’s never said anything remotely close to anything like “this is the problem with the gays” or “people like Maza” or “he’s like this because he’s gay”. No. It’s always been an attack on Maza himself as an individual. And I’m sorry but when you create political commentary content where you’re whole shtick is criticising others, it’s just plain fair game that others are going to react to what you say. What is Maza actually asking for here? And by going after youtube Maza is demonstrating the very mob behaviour and targeting that he claims youtube enables in others. Critics have been parodying each other forever. Crowder denounces all forms of doxing and online bullying. This is not just to formally cover his ass, he knows and makes clear that is is exactly what people like Maza want so they can claim that sweet, sweet victimhood and it plays right into their narrative. Online bullying is never ok and never helps anyone. Crowder understands this and always denounces it. The responsibility of creators for their followers is another conversation.

Now as for Maza. All I can say is the guy isn’t real journalism, it’s the exact activist based narrative propaganda that he himself is so critical of. Crowder isn’t fooling anyone by using the word “Figs” instead of “Fags” on his shirt. Maza isn’t fooling anyone by advocating for acosting people with milkshakes isn’t an incitement for violence. I’ll tell you right now if you ever threw a milkshake at me I’d beat the ever living fuck out of you. I have my own hateful conduct policy. Kill me or regret it. So he violates actual laws but you’ll never see it enforced because society is adhering to this social justice rhetoric around protected classes.

I can appreciate that he may call himself a gay wonk and that doesn’t automatically exempt others from scrutiny for engaging him with the same language. I believe the word Nigger is reprehensible and should never be used. However I don’t care when I hear it in a song or in the context of news and the like. But the main point here is that Maza has entered the public domain to target and criticize others. This is his career. He gets paid to do this. This puts him squarely smack dab in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. His ideas and opinions are just as up for scrutiny as those he targets. He, himself, engages in the same demonizing language he’s critical over Crowder using.

He thinks he’s right based on his race and sexual orientation and Crowder is inherently wrong as a measure of his race and sexual orientation. Maza is wrong. He claims Youtube doesn’t care about it’s LGBTQ creators. This is a lie and his calls for protest are all simply aimed at damaging youtube and the creators on their platform. He even admits himself this isn’t really about Crowder. And he chose to do all of this at the same time of a vox walkout and during pride month. It’s calculated, manipulative and disingenuous. His proclamation of victimhood is, in my opinion, purely aimed at harming others. The mainstream hit pieces that have followed reinforce my feeling that this is just another attempt to reclaim lost ground against alternative media.

He’s doing it for the clicks

He’s doing it for the clicks 

He’s doing it for the clicks 

Watch Philly D cover new main stream media hit pieces:

Watch Tim Pool’s coverage of Media hit piece:

Watch The Quartering react to the media hit piece:

Watch 1791 cover the media hit piece:

Watch Secular Talk cover the media hit piece:

Watch Ben Shapiro’s coverage of the media hit piece:

So in closing, I need to ask. What exactly are we talking about here? Is this just a fight between Crowder and Maza? Well neither knows each other personally and it’s pretty clear that both parties have their own personal agendas behind their faux feud. So this really isn’t a conflict between these two. Is this a conversation about censorship? Maza makes clear that it’s not enough to demonetize creators channels, citing websites like patreon. Youtube has nothing to do with Patreon. Is it not enough to censor a creator? Must there be a collaborative effort to destroy the lives of those we deem ‘problematic’? Youtube can change it’s policies every hour if they want, I don’t think that’s what the issue is really about.

I think this all comes down to the big question of what is social media? Is it a private company that is allowed to ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ anyone they deem harmful to their brand? Is it a publication that produces us with news? Well all mainstream media has no problem citing social media for anecdotes in their work. All media utilize social media for their content to reach far beyond the municipal boundaries of their broadcast. Is social media really just a company that aims at only making money?

Well if social media wants to continue to regulate content then it increasingly fulfills the role of publisher as it guides our attention and calculates it’s recommendations. Maybe a better question is what is social media to us? Internet in general is now considered a basic human right as more people do their banking, communications and coordination through their smart devices or computers. Trying to live without a phone or access to internet truly does present very real barriers to thriving in a society that demands instantaneous communication.

Here are a few other good questions. If you cannot network, plan, promote, advertize or advocate on social media, how does that impact your professional and/or social life? Would you suffer damages by being barred from utilizing social media? What advantages would others have over you if you were not allowed access to social media while running for political office? While others have access to it but you don’t. How would that impact the election of your riding? Better yet, could you ever become president/prime minister without a presence on social media? I don’t think you could run a competitive campaign without some degree of social media activity.

How significant is our online avatar? Is our online presence as significant as our physical self in real life? If you disappeared from social media, would it have a measurable impact on your real life friendships? Could that lead to falling out with certain friends? Your profile, your avatar, your page, your library. Are these personalized home pages shares? Does holding a personal account/home page equate to holding a share within the company if it’s profitability is derived from your account/content? Is there an argument there that your account is a form of equity? Canadian government ruled that points accumulated on reward cards like air miles is a form of equity that is owned by the card holder, not air miles. This after Air Miles attempted to retroactively apply an adjustment to terms and conditions around accumulated points. Government ruled that unconstitutional. They ruled that digital equity could be property. Does my participation on social media produce equity that I should be entitled to?

Are these companies monopolies? What relationship do we have with social media? Is it addictive? Could it be so intrinsic to our functionality that social media can become a symbiotic relationship with us? It may be true that social media are private companies. This also means they are unelected officials regulating the centre of public discourse. So what responsibilities do these companies have in the symbiotic relationship their products have with our lives? Are these platforms an open forum? I don’t have the answers but I think after seeing just how far you can flesh out the significance of social media it tends to feel more like a public utility than merely a private platform. Perhaps how it functions goes beyond it’s intended design. But if it meets the definition of a public utility then we cannot ignore the conversation around civil rights. And if access to these platforms is a civil right then it’s pretty clear the conversation around regulation is far from over and far more complex than it seems.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin